Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 06 March 1985 |
Citation | 298 Or. 765,696 P.2d 1082 |
Parties | Kristi A. TOTTEN, Petitioner on Review, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., A New York Corporation, Respondent on Review. TC A8209-05575; CA A28617; SC S30836. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Emerson G. Fisher, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.
Don G. Carter, Portland, argued the cause and filed the response for respondent on review. With him on the response was McEwen, Hanna, Gisvold & Rankin, and Robert D. Rankin, Portland.
The sole issue in this petition for review is whether the term "any aircraft" in the exclusion clause of a life insurance policy includes a hang glider. 1 We hold that a hang glider is included in the term "any aircraft."
In May 1980, Dale Totten purchased an insurance policy from the defendant, New York Life Insurance Co., insuring his life in the face amount of $25,000. The policy also contained an accidental death benefit in the additional sum of $25,000. Dale Totten's wife, Kristi A. Totten, was named the primary beneficiary.
On April 9, 1982, Dale Totten died by drowning when the hang glider he was operating crashed into the ocean near Cape Lookout State Park in Tillamook County.
Kristi A. Totten, as beneficiary under the life insurance policy, furnished the defendant with a proof of loss. The defendant paid the face amount of the policy, but denied the accidental death benefits on the grounds the policy in part provided:
The plaintiff then filed this action to recover the accidental death benefits. The defendant in its answer set out the above quoted exclusion clause. The plaintiff moved for a partial summary judgment and the defendant moved for a summary judgment. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendant. It in effect held that a hang glider is "any aircraft" as that term is used in the exclusion clause of the subject life insurance policy. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the trial court. 68 Or.App. 253, 680 P.2d 1021 (1984).
The plaintiff filed a petition for review in this court. We allowed the petition to determine if the Court of Appeals had departed from the "well-established and time-honored" rules of law on the construction of insurance policies. 2 We find that the Court of Appeals applied the correct rules of law in construing the insurance policy question.
The plaintiff's position breaks down into two parts: (1) The conformity clause incorporates into the policy the definition of "aircraft" contained in ORS 492.010(4); and (2) the term "aircraft" as it is used in the exclusion clause is ambiguous and therefore should be construed in favor of the insured.
The policy in part provides:
The statute to which the plaintiff refers is:
ORS 492.010(4) was amended in 1975 by adding the part emphasized above. Or.Laws 1975, ch. 755, § 1. The legislative history shows that the only purpose of the amendment was to exclude hang gliders from the requirements of the Aeronautics Administration for the licensing of pilots and regulation of airports, thereby allowing the Parks and Recreation Division of the Department of Transportation to be the only agency regulating the use of hang gliders in the state parks. 4 We agree with the Court of Appeals that there is nothing in the legislative history to indicate a change in the common definition of aircraft for other purposes. 5
The question boils down to: Is the life insurance policy "subject to" the laws of this state which relate to aeronautics? To say it another way: Is the language in the life insurance policy relating to "aircraft" to be interpreted through application of the laws of this state that are connected with the science and art of flight? We answer in the negative. We agree with the Court of Appeals who construed the conformity clause "to incorporate only those sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes directly applicable to the issuance and content of insurance policies, see, e.g., ORS 743.159 to 743.252, and not to each and every section of the entire Oregon Revised Statutes." 6
Our conclusion is supported by Term. News Stand, Inc. v. General Cas. Co., 203 Or. 54, 278 P.2d 158 (1954). In that case the plaintiff operated a confectionery and newsstand in a bus depot in Portland. The defendant had issued an insurance policy by which it had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss resulting from burglary by force and violence. The policy required the proof of force and violence "shall be visible marks made upon the exterior of the premises at the place of entry, by tools * * *." The plaintiff's business was burglarized, but there were no visible marks of the entry on the exterior of the premises. The defendant refused to pay the loss. The plaintiff contended that under the following provision of the policy the statutory definition of burglary should apply:
The trial court denied the defendant's motions for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit and for a directed verdict. The defendant appealed from a jury verdict and this court reversed and in part held:
The second part of the plaintiff's contention is that the term "aircraft," as it is used in the exclusion clause of the policy, is ambiguous and therefore should be construed in her favor. The defendant answers that the term "aircraft" is not ambiguous and that the following common definition of the term set out in Webster's New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1976) controls:
"A weight-carrying machine or structure for flight in or navigation of the air and designed to be supported by the air either by the buoyancy of the structure or the dynamic action of the air against its surface--used of airplanes, balloons, helicopters, kites, kite ballons, orthopters, and gliders but chiefly of airplanes or aerostats."
The primary and governing rule of the construction of insurance contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties. I-L Logging Co. v. Mfgrs. & Whlse. Ind. Exc., 202 Or. 277, 273 P.2d 212, 275 P.2d 226 (1954). 7 The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. ORS 42.250. We interpret the terms of an insurance policy according to what we perceive to be the understanding of the ordinary purchaser of insurance. Botts v. Hartford Acc & Indem Co., 284 Or. 95, 100, 585 P.2d 657 (1978). "Also any ambiguity in an exclusionary clause is strictly construed against the insurer." Stanford v. American Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 280 Or. 525, 527, 571 P.2d 909 (1977).
The plaintiff relies on Shadbolt v. Farmers Insur. Exch., 275 Or. 407, 410, 551 P.2d 478 (1976):
"We have said, however, that when words or terms of a general nature are used in an insurance policy, such words or terms may be ambiguous, in the legal sense, when they could reasonably be given a broader or narrower meaning, depending upon the intention of the parties in the context in which such words are used by them."
The plaintiff in effect is arguing that the term "aircraft" is a general term and therefore is ambiguous in a legal sense because it could be given either a broader or narrower meaning. The plaintiff takes her argument one step further by saying that because the term "aircraft" is ambiguous, she is entitled to have the term liberally construed in her favor and that it should be given a narrow meaning. Thus, if the term "aircraft" is given a narrow interpretation, hang gliders would be eliminated from the exclusion clause.
The problem with the plaintiff's argument is that the clause in the insurance policy does not exclude merely "aircraft" but excludes "any aircraft." In other words, the parties by agreeing upon the term "any aircraft"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon
...rejected it. Language in at least two of our recent opinions, however, suggests support for the doctrine. In Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co., 298 Or. 765, 771, 696 P.2d 1082 (1985), this court said: "We interpret the terms of an insurance policy according to what we perceive to be the unde......
-
Genest v. John Glenn Corp.
... ... to be $425,000 with credit of 10% of total lease payments during the life of the lease being allowed as a credit against the [298 Or. 728] purchase ... New York and New Jersey are in the minority in holding that if no reference is made ... ...
-
Hunters Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Sherwood Crossing, LLC
...of the ordinary purchaser of insurance." Congdon v. Berg , 256 Or.App. 73, 87, 299 P.3d 588 (2013) (quoting Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co. , 298 Or. 765, 771, 696 P.2d 1082 (1985) ); see also ORS 42.250 ("The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general a......
-
Congdon v. Berg
...motorist coverage. Reading the letter and the proof of loss form together, in a common sense manner, see Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co., 298 Or. 765, 770–71, 696 P.2d 1082 (1985) (“The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. ORS 42.250. ......
-
Chapter 3
...Mutual Insurance Co. v. Glascarr Properties, Inc., 688 S.E.2d 508 (N.C. App. 2010). Oregon: Totten v. New York Life Insurance Co., 696 P.2d 1082 (Or. 1985); Gonzales v. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, 150 P.3d 20 (Or. App. 2006); Smith v. State Farm Insurance Co., 927 P.2d 111 (Or. App......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...Mutual Insurance Co. v. Glascarr Properties, Inc., 688 S.E.2d 508 (N.C. App. 2010). Oregon: Totten v. New York Life Insurance Co., 696 P.2d 1082 (Or. 1985); Gonzales v. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, 150 P.3d 20 (Or. App. 2006); Smith v. State Farm Insurance Co., 927 P.2d 111 (Or. App......